• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Katody Matrass said:
Sorry if my English is not clear, but by "topmost bar" I meant the topmost metal bar of the window grating. It's accessible, the suicidal guy at this photo has his left foot on it:
http://injusticeinperugia.org/window_access.jpg
Click to expand...
Is Rudy much taller than him? I don't see the guy in the photo reaching the latch half way up the inside of the window.

He did well to make that climb without help from the onlookers, I'd think twice before trying it.
 
Katody Matrass said:
150 + 65 would be 215 cm. I guess you're not tall if you cannot reach above 205 cm. I'm a bit shorter then Rudy, yet I can reach 230 cm at an oblique angle( simulating the reaching into the window Rudy had to do). And it is without holding on to anything with my other hand. My arm is around 75 cm from the center of armpit with outstretched fingers. Supporting myself on an elbow I can reach 80 cm above the surface easily, and I really don't think I have unnaturally long arms.
Making a few simple exercises like this actually convinced me how easy it is.

(.. )
Click to expand...

I think I am something like 4-5 cm shorter than Rudy. I am exactly average. I'm talking of what I can grab, not what I can touch with the tips of finger. I will take another measurement of my door frame but I guess it's not more than 205 cm. I am standing on a surface, not on an iron bar, so I can strech on the tips of my toes. However looking at the window in person I don't see the window latch though the broken glass as reachable point.
If a person is 180 cm tall, and the arm is 75 cm from armpit, the total lenght with arms stretched would be around 225-230 cm maximum. to the tip of fingers. Which means 230 cm is not reachable. You would only maybe touch it with tips of finger.
But though a broken glass you cannot stretch your arm.
This means this latch located 215 cm above foothold in an oblique position behind a broken glass pane cannot be considered something easily reachable not even by a person 185 cm long.
 
treehorn said:
1) The video recording is not the only piece of evidence adduced in respect of Knox's g-string purchase. The lingerie shop keeper testified in open court, no? Were you, like Nadeau, in the courtroom to hear him testify? Even if you were able to do so, would you have understood a word of his Italian? On what grounds are you going to impeach his testimony, Halides?

2) If Knox had gone to the Italian equivalent of a Target for some no-name cotton undies, your argument (the PR spin) would be a little less laughable. However, she took her sex partner (of 6 days duration) with her to buy a single G-string (and, no, the "G" does not denote "Grandma Undies") in a fashion that raised the eyebrows of a man accustomed to watching couples purchase 'sexy underwear' on a regular basis. Does THAT accord with your idea of 'grief stricken' or 'in fear for her life'?! Does it accord with your notion of an 'emergency underwear re-supply trip'? Get real: ONE G-string instead of a 6 pack of cotton 'Fruit of the Loom' to get her through the week?!
Click to expand...

The rest of us figured out long ago that the store in question is a general women's clothing store. With an underwear selection a lot closer to Target than Victoria Secret.
 
Machiavelli said:
Yes but in this case, for example, you don't know that the area was generally not susceptible to shoeprints or that the search was not very thorough. You may just assume this as a person making his opinion as an internet lurker
Click to expand...

Actually I don't have to assume it. It is entirely possible there where some traces of the climb, and ILE just missed them. Such educated guess is confirmed by various other traces ILE missed and by the fact that there is no proof of any extensive search for such traces.


Machiavelli said:
, but in practice any defensive argument should start by knowing this and bring a proof of this. We can't say neither that thse witnesses had a vested interest, this speculation is unelaborated and unsubstantiated.
Click to expand...
I'm entirely aware, that the defense is in a serious disadvantage when dealing with such witnesses. I'm not sure the defense have to prove something, it can always state there is no proof the witness is right. After all the burden of proof should be quite high, we're dealing with serious accusations.

But I'm not in court, so I can base my position on reason, not courtroom tactics, and I (hopefully) don't have to be afraid of slander charges.
So I just make an educated guess, that although some witness stated there was no traces it is still entirely possible that Rudy climbed that wall anyway.
 
platonov said:
shuttlt

Sorry, but you haven't answered my question or responded to the point above.
I'm familiar with the testimony to a certain extent - which is why I asked the question.

The section you actually quoted is one I referred to earlier where she was caught out in her confusion/conflation.
Click to expand...
I thought you had questioned whether she really claimed that she hadn't requested to give her declaration to Mignini.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6636987&postcount=19189

In my quote she says, despite a bit of confusion, that the declaration with Mignini was taken against her will. Are you arguing that this isn't necessarily the same thing as saying she didn't request it?
 
shuttlt said:
I thought you had questioned whether she really claimed that she hadn't requested to give her declaration to Mignini.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6636987&postcount=19189

In my quote she says, despite a bit of confusion, that the declaration with Mignini was taken against her will. Are you arguing that this isn't necessarily the same thing as saying she didn't request it?
Click to expand...

That's precisely what I'm getting at.

Leaving aside her generalised 'confusion'/conflation about the whole 1.45 / 5.45 thing - about the whole 5/6th questra episode in fact...

Where does AK or more importantly the defence lawyers make the claim [via a direct question for example] that the idea for the later 'spontaneous declarations' came from the cops or Mignini.
Surely her lawyers would have brought it up - as opposed to waiting for katy did to make the supposition on JREF/the net after the fact :)

I dont see it.
 
Last edited:
I find it a little bizarre that the defence don't complain about it being called spontaneous over and over.
 
Machiavelli said:
What I wonder is why you decide to believe to this whole series of scenarios.
This very last point, for example, is something I would need to see done. Why a right handed man should step on the left side of the window, why use the left foot to climb aftr he used the right hand to open the window, and why would he chose not to remove glass shards just swiping them down just to have a safer space to put the elbow, the knee or the other foot. This simple indication is something not consistent.
Click to expand...

But you didn't point inconsistency, only incredulity. On the other hand, there are real inconsistencies in "guilt" theories.

What I presented is just one scenario out of others possible. It is consistent internally and with the evidence. But of course I don't know how he did it exactly, he could do it like this also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qDnkAUiAgY

As to why I think he got his left foot on the ledge? Because I think he caught the TV cable with his right foot when stepping in.
 
shuttlt said:
I find it a little bizarre that the defence don't complain about it being called spontaneous over and over.
Click to expand...


Not so bizarre after all maybe :) - and they had bigger things to worry about.

As I said earlier the prosecution let it pass - because the claim was never actually made as far as I can see & more importantly because the later unsolicited gifts etc contained much of the same stuff and she couldnt claim 'pressure' in that case and so went for 'confusion'

.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
Is Rudy much taller than him? I don't see the guy in the photo reaching the latch half way up the inside of the window.
Click to expand...
The distance from the top metal bar is 1,5 m. Rudy being 1,8 m would look quite similar, maybe a bit taller then that guy.
Well the latch is hidden under the shutters sealed by the police. The closed shutters change the configuration enough to make further climbing quite hard. e.g. he has no ledge to place his elbow.


shuttlt said:
He did well to make that climb without help from the onlookers, I'd think twice before trying it.
Click to expand...

It's not so different from climbing a ladder.
 
Machiavelli said:
I think I am something like 4-5 cm shorter than Rudy. I am exactly average. I'm talking of what I can grab, not what I can touch with the tips of finger.
Click to expand...
Exactly, I'm holding a steel tape measure container 2,30 m above the ground. But to be honest there is not much to hold in that window latch. The catch handle is very small and can be pushed up even with fingertips.


If a person is 180 cm tall, and the arm is 75 cm from armpit, the total lenght with arms stretched would be around 225-230 cm maximum. to the tip of fingers. Which means 230 cm is not reachable. You would only maybe touch it with tips of finger.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you're still able to bring yourself up on your elbow if you need it, you don't have to rely only on your toes. But I think that such straining was not necessary for Rudy. And the latch is only 215 cm above, not 230.

But though a broken glass you cannot stretch your arm.
Click to expand...
I disagree. http://injusticeinperugia.org/104.JPG
The interesting portion of the window is completely free from glass shards. Rudy had total freedom to extend his arm fully.
 
OK, here's a source for calling the 5:45am thing a spontaneous statement:

They used the statements I made at 1.45 am on November 6 when I didn't not have the presence of an attorney to defend me.
I was questioned again at 5.45 am and gave "spontaneous statements," but these are not admissible due to the status I had acquired in the mean time.
Both are violations of Article 63 cpp
Click to expand...
This is clearly prepared by a lawyer. My money is on "spontaneous statements" being a legal term in Italy. I vaguely recall having this pointed out to me previously.
 
not credible

treehorn said:
That depends.

WHO are the "OTHERS"?
Click to expand...

Mark Waterbury wrote, "No one else in the courtroom heard those words. Everyone else heard “Forte, Raffaele!” Italian, for “Strength, Raffaele.” That makes sense, the curse doesn’t." Nor would it make sense for other reporters not to mention it, if she had said a curse word. Ms. Nadeau's account is simply not credible. Can you find one other person besides Barbie Nadeau who made this claim? BTW, it is possible that Mrs. Sollecito said, "Forza," but it would mean about the same thing in context.

I note that you have still not even attempted an explanation/rationalization for Ms. Nadeau's misreporting of the diary.
 
halides1 said:
Mark Waterbury wrote, "No one else in the courtroom heard those words. Everyone else heard “Forte, Raffaele!” Italian, for “Strength, Raffaele.” That makes sense, the curse doesn’t." Nor would it make sense for other reporters not to mention it, if she had said a curse word. Ms. Nadeau's account is simply not credible. Can you find one other person besides Barbie Nadeau who made this claim? BTW, it is possible that Mrs. Sollecito said, "Forza," but it would mean about the same thing in context.

I note that you have still not even attempted an explanation/rationalization for Ms. Nadeau's misreporting of the diary.
Click to expand...

Who is "Mark Waterbury", exactly?

Was "Mark Waterbury" in the Perugian courtroom?

Does "Mark Waterbury" even speak Italian?

WHO are the individuals comprising the group labeled "EVERYONE"? Did you speak to EVERYONE of them?

Do you have a translation of the testimony in respect of Knox's list of sex partners? On what grounds are you faulting Nadeau's numbers?
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Mark Waterbury wrote, "No one else in the courtroom heard those words. Everyone else heard “Forte, Raffaele!” Italian, for “Strength, Raffaele.” That makes sense, the curse doesn’t." Nor would it make sense for other reporters not to mention it, if she had said a curse word. Ms. Nadeau's account is simply not credible. Can you find one other person besides Barbie Nadeau who made this claim? BTW, it is possible that Mrs. Sollecito said, "Forza," but it would mean about the same thing in context.

I note that you have still not even attempted an explanation/rationalization for Ms. Nadeau's misreporting of the diary.
Click to expand...
Mark Waterbury is surely not a primary source, or authority here? Isn't this just a quote of somebody else saying the same thing as you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom